Saturday, July 28, 2018

And now we will have a kind of radicalization of our mentalities, already assuming that we are defeated.

And that we must proceed with a kind of suicidal abandon.

A kind of deadliness in our intentionality, which before was not necessary, but has now been made so.

So the way these projects will now direct themselves– because we all know that they won't stop, and people will not stop...

She has invited a deadlier, more suicidal element to the kind of code making, and the type of personality which would undertake this type of work.

Whereas beforehand, she had someone who was naive and idealistic, you know who actually believed that he could make a different world–

That stuff gets put in prison for double life.

That mentality is put in prison for double life.

You think they're going to let you be some kind of martyr for the drug war? No. They're going to make you a monster.

And because the rules of the game are so fierce and so deadly, you have to be fierce and deadly.

And so they will have made monsters of all those people who are to come, and they don't even know it.

And we will be monsters.

Right? They will have to be.

Because that's the stakes.

This is going to get much more interesting, much more deadly, and they've raised the stakes.

Right? This is the kind of escalation.

–because they punish the moral man.

It's supremely ethical. That's my argument.

The fact that he considered assassination of a government agent– at some pain– doesn't change the fact that he was trying to make an ethical decision. And indeed, was serious about trying to make that decision...

We are dealing with the vestiges of a Kantian morality, which says that only the supreme monopolization of authority can ultimately use violence, and only legitimately, justifiably use violence. Violence isn't something for you to be able to use.

Well this guy was faced with a decision. He was painted into a corner. Cornered like an animal. With a loss of either his freedom or the freedom of his suppliers.

And he had to make a decision. Do I snuff out this guy? And protect this thing? This thing that I've built?

And maybe he was selfish, maybe he wasn't. But he had to try to make an ethical decision.

Just because it was a matter of life and death doesn't overrule the fact that he was still trying to struggle with ethics, but they didn't allow him that.

Friday, July 20, 2018

On this week's episode of "YOUR WELCOME" we are joined by Cody Wilson. Cody is the founder/director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs suitable for 3D printing and digital manufacturing. Listen as he talks to Michael Malice about first amendment rights, crypto-anarchy and the concept of the downloadable gun.

Now listen, if you're a Democrat, I'm not saying that you, in your every day life outside of what you think about politics, are insane– or at least I'm not saying you're any more insane than every other homo on this planet (genus, not orientation). But the voices of your party have lost their God damned minds.

They are having a terrible, slow motion meltdown live on everybody's phone, computer, and television screen, running furiously in vicious circles trying to find some way, any possible way, that you weren't all wrong about Hillary Clinton.

Couldn't be that she really lost. It just couldn't be! It must have been the Russians! The Russians, yes! They interfered in our election! And Donald Trump conspired with them!

America's future former newspaper of record.

II.

It's not good when an entire political party responsible for governance in the United States is in July 2018 still hysterically channeling Rosie O'Donnell's Mar 2017 public meltdown very shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated.

Rosie O'Donnell: "The Charge Is Treason."

But Rosie's meltdown was far more understandable. She was having a hard time accepting that Donald Trump– who's bullied her for years on Twitter, and publicly humiliated her for cheap laughs and elicited thunderous applause during a televised debate– had become the president of the United States.

For Rosie it really was personal. And it was about Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. And it was right after the inauguration.

But Democrats are still in deep, white hot denial, going on two years later, that Hillary Clinton could have actually lost to Donald Trump, and they're taking it insanely personal instead of being curious and well-meaning enough to open their eyes and try to understand what really happened in the 2016 election.

What Really Happened in 2016

Every. Four. Years.

III.

For the good of your political party if not your own mental health and the stability of our society, you are going to have to stop this madness and just admit that Hillary Clinton was a crap sandwich, and that you and the establishment Democrats in the DNC and media who picked her for you were willfully blind to that.

And that you were wittingly naive and foolish enough to choose not to see that electing a uterus to steal more billions for thieving Wall Street banks, and continue over half a century of the U.S. raping and burning the Middle East and Africa to the ground is a seriously impoverished and decadent conception of progress.

That it's not because Russians stole the election from her that she lost, but because as deeply unpalatable as the television clown was, he still wasn't as bad as the deeply corrupt, influence-peddling, bloodthirsty, warmongering Hillary Clinton, and all her friends on Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

IV.

If Democrats can't bring themselves to do that, then at the very least just let it go and move on. Do like the Republicans did with George W. Bush and Iraq– just have mass amnesia!

They were so epicly embarrassed and mortified about that bloody nightmare of an administration, they spent the 2008, 2012, and 2016 campaigns pretending the Bush years never happened.

Every Republican candidate on the primary debate stage for three presidential elections had to reach all the way back to 1984 and promise they would be the next Ronald Reagan, because no one dared suggest they might be the next George W. Bush.

The only way they could get a Republican in the Oval Office was by nominating an ex-Democrat from a liberal state (just like Reagan), television actor (just like Reagan), with the campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" (just like Reagan).

It'll be like Bush never happened :)

V.

At least the Republicans had the good sense to have selective amnesia so we could move on as a society instead of twisting their minds and everybody else's to find some explanation, any reason, however tortured and specious, that they weren't actually wrong about George W. Bush and the Global War of Terror.

But the Democrats can't even muster that demented form of good grace for all our sakes and their own. We're nearly to the first midterms after Clinton's defeat, and they're still stuck in the Denial stage of the Kübler-Ross model of grief, and sliding into Anger, still trying to convince themselves that they were right.

The Anger is the Denial digging its heels in.

If you're frequently frustrated and angry, bitter and resentful– the kind of person who yells at your Twitter feed or rages at other drivers during rush hour– like very many of the people who vote and go to protests and get swept up in political movements, you might be in denial about something important and personal to you, something you're afraid to face because it's painful.

VI.

Swiss psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross developed her model based on her experiences working with terminally ill patients, but it seems to describe a mental process of resistance to any revelation or change in our lives that is painful and difficult to cope with, and the gradual, begrudging path we take to acceptance.

"1. Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage, individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality."

When we cling tightly to our denial, every aspect of reality that threatens to shatter it, that shines a light on it and proves that our denial is wrong and that what we are denying is true– enrages us. We drive ourselves mad shoring up our denial and our fantasy reality with "alternative facts" (lies). If we're especially desperate, we are driven to find refuge in elaborate conspiracy theories.

And our spinning minds spin faster, desperate to shut out the truth, more afraid now of what we've been avoiding than ever, willing to believe anything, however ridiculous, that shields us from what we're denying, and madly determined to live forever in the false reality we've split off from the world to hide in.

2. Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; "Who is to blame?"; "Why would this happen?".

"How can this happen?" Sustained loud insistence on bizarre, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russian interference in the 2016 election. "Who is to blame?" Nazis! Putin! Russia! Hackers! When we cannot bring ourselves to blame ourselves we desperately find someone else to take the blame for us.

If nothing else, I hope this understanding of a terrible propensity of the human psyche may be of personal benefit to you, and steer you away from the grave danger and suffering of this pitfall of the human soul. Or that should you fall, these words may come back to you during a time of darkness in your life.

Though it's not easy, the only way out is to face the dragon forthrightly, with courage and hope. If you won't swallow the bitter cup to the last drop, it will become an ocean and swallow you.

VII.

The more viciously and bitterly we cling to denial, the more frustrated we become at anything that threatens our denials, and the angrier we get at the scapegoat we've made to take on the blame that we fear we cannot bear.

Even more bitter and painful to see: Our actions in clinging to our denial reveal the falseness of our original intentions, which we believed were good. Truth, justice, the good of humanity– how could it have been about all of that if we are so willing to sacrifice the truth to avoid the pain of personal responsibility?

We are shocked and disgusted to find that we have become– that in fact there was always in us– that which we purported to hate! We have become cartoon caricatures of the very despotism we thought we had originally set out to defeat!

The Democrats who started out with a progressive humanitarian message of overturning despotic authority, have ended up by crying out in the same voice as the most iron-fisted, petulant, conservative, Old World monarch, whose feeble pride has been insulted by some slight: "Treason! Treeaason!"

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Like all political rhetoric, all that talk about progress and female empowerment was just talk. Now we see what we would have gotten if Hillary Clinton had won. A mob of blood-thirsty tyrants, and maybe another God damned war– with nuclear Russia.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Peter Schiff is an American businessman, investment broker, author and financial commentator. Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. He also hosts his own podcast, “The Peter Schiff Podcast” at SchiffRadio.com

Nearing the two year mark since the shocking 2016 presidential election result devastated both the Democratic and Republican Party power structures, liberal mainstream media journalists are still stuck in the denial stage of the Kübler-Ross model of grief.

They were so certain Hillary Clinton would win, the election result they expected was so cemented into their minds as an immutable reality before the election had even taken place that they could not let go of the perfect world they had created in their imagination, even after the electorate knocked down their castle in the sky.

Because they were so sure she was going to win, Hillary Clinton couldn't have really lost. All too ironically, they turned for solace to the line Donald Trump was feeding to his followers to embrace in anticipation of defeat ahead of the November election:

The election must have been rigged!

So on and on the Democratic Party and its supporters in the media have gone about Russian interference in the 2016 election, an interpretation that it now appears will never abate for the fiercest of Democratic partisans.

Admitting the DNC rigged the election against itself by ignoring independent voters and aggressively quelling the nearly successful primary challenge by an independent candidate, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is out of the question.

The #TreasonSummit!

The Helsinki summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been styled "the Treason Summit" by hordes of liberal social media activists, following the lead of the New York Times, which ran an op-ed Sunday, entitled"Trump, Treasonous Traitor: The president fails to protect the country from an ongoing attack."

The article, by New York Times columnist, Charles M. Blow, begins by establishing the fact of Russian interference in the election as an indisputable conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, and pointing out that, "it was not only the spreading of inflammatory fake news over social media," before referencing a May 2018 Senate Intelligence Committee report:

"In 2016, cyber actors affiliated with the Russian Government conducted an unprecedented, coordinated cyber campaign against state election infrastructure. Russian actors scanned databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases successfully penetrated a voter registration database. This activity was part of a larger campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process."

Blow is counting on his busy or lazy readers not to click the link to the report to read the very next line that he chose not to share:

"The Committee has not seen any evidence that vote tallies were manipulated or that voter registration information was deleted or modified."

That part doesn't play into his spin, so he chopped it off. At America's future former newspaper of record.

Misleading partisan journalism at its finest.

There's no doubt that Russian intelligence did their job by gathering as much intel on the U.S. election as they could, and probing digital infrastructure for weaknesses.

It's no newsflash that governments spy on each other. That's something every government's intelligence agencies do. That's something the United States' official allies like Israel (which perennially interferes in U.S. elections) and the U.K. do. The U.S. does it too. In 2013, leaked documents revealed the NSA had wiretapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone and were spying on a number of German officials and journalists.

That doesn't stop these ostensible allies from engaging in diplomacy and international summits, and no one accuses the president or State Department of treason for meeting with them. This is a hysterically partisan attack, and it's not about America's national security, and it's not about Russia.

It's about the unwillingness or inability of American liberals in the press to admit that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump fair and square.

Russian Fake News

The hysteria over Russian fake news having an impact on the 2016 election is practically fake news itself. Last Fall CNN's Dylan Byers breathlessly reported that, "Facebook estimates 126 million people were served content from Russia-linked pages."

That's such a big number, that it appears as if Russia significantly interfered in the U.S. election with an information campaign on Facebook. But when you dig into the article, past the point where the average person stops reading, you discover how fake it is:

"Facebook does not know, however, how many of those 126 million people actually saw one of those posts, or how many may have scrolled past it or simply not logged in on the day that one of the posts was being served in their News Feed."

It gets even better:

"'This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content,' Stretch writes. 'Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA.'"

Not nearly as alarming, is it?

Independent Voters

The truth is– notwithstanding partisan journalists everywhere twisting themselves and the truth into pretzels to blame Trump on Vladimir Putin– that Donald Trump did not win the election– Hillary Clinton lost it by failing to appeal to independent voters. If that's a lesson the DNC and its partisan acolytes in the press refuse to learn, the electorate will teach them again in 2018 and 2020.

Independent voters weren't swayed by Russian clickbait mills. They saw in Hillary Clinton everything they find disconcerting about the establishment and its partisan power structures.

They saw in Donald Trump, an independent, outside-the-beltway candidate, an opportunity to challenge both the Republican and Democratic establishments by electing someone the establishment didn't anoint.

That isn't my opinion. That is an absolute fact, borne out by the exit polls on that fateful November Tuesday. I recommend that journalists worth their salt go back and read IVN's report on the election results by party affiliation (or lack thereof) by Breton Peace and Shawn Griffiths the Wednesday after.

In all three critical swing states, partisan voters voted for their party, and independent voters swung toward Trump. These independent voters are patriots that care more about their country than they care about their party.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

"We see liberty under threat. We see sovereignty under threat. We must respond." -Cody Wilson

"I don't believe in Romney versus Obama. I believe in real politics. That's a real political act, giving you a magazine, telling you that it will never be taken away... That's radical equality. That's what I believe in... I'm just resisting. What am I resisting? I don't know... But I can tell you one thing: this is a symbol of irreversibility. They can never eradicate the gun from the earth." -Cody Wilson

Cody Wilson is the University of Texas law student who invented the world's first 3D printed firearm, the Liberator, in 2013, and a 3D printed AR-15 lower receiver (capable of firing over 650 rounds), plus a number of magazines (including one for the AK-47)– and made the CAD files to 3D print them available for free to anyone with uncensored Internet on the website, DefCad.org.

3d Printed Lower Receiver AR-15 Demo, 2013

Checkmate, gun control

Liberator Pistol: Downloadable and 3D Printable

Cody Wilson based the design for the physible (or 3D printable) single shot Liberator pistol on the WWII era FP-45 Liberator created for the U.S. Army Joint Psychological Warfare Committee by skilled American gunsmith, George Hyde.

The Army wanted a simple, single shot pistol that could be easily, quickly, and cheaply mass produced, then air dropped by the Office of Strategic Services (the OSS would later become the CIA) into Nazi-occupied Europe for resistance forces to use.

A crude and clumsy weapon with a short, unrifled barrel, and an effective range of no more than 25-feet, the original Liberator was never intended for front line use by regular soldiers, but as a tool of insurgency, and a psychological operation to demoralize occupying forces. When planning for civilian resistance, occupying forces would have to consider the untold thousands of Liberators airdropped into the hands of civilian insurgents.

The modern, physible Liberator looks quite like its WWII predecessor, and seems to perfectly emulate its design, both mechanical and strategic. It certainly had its intended effect as a bold statement of resistance to world governments and an effective demonstration of the futility of state control.

Upon the publication of the CAD files for the Liberator by Cody Wilson's non-profit Defense Distributed in May 2013, the files were downloaded 100,000 times in 48 hours before the U.S. government sent a letter demanding the files be taken down.

Cody Wilson complied, but by then the files were available on the Dark Web and through decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing indexes like The Pirate Bay. It would be impossible for any government to ever take them down again without censoring the entire Internet. God bless the Internet.

Click. Print. Gun.
(Just add a single metal nail for the firing pin.)

Cody Wilson's Lawsuit Against The U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Department of State

Within days of his opening salvo in a new digital war against gun control, the U.S. State Department closed in on Cody, threatening to prosecute him under federal arms export laws for making his 3D printable gun files available to people overseas by putting them online, ostensibly treating the matter as if he had shipped an actual gun to another country– like the U.S. does all the time.

(No hint of irony from the same people who sent 2,000 guns across the border into Mexico, in the bizarre, botched FBI gun-walking operation code-named "Fast and Furious," —including hundreds of AR-15 rifles, deliberately selling them to known weapons sources for the violent criminal Mexican drug cartel, many of which have been found at murder scenes of innocent civilians and a U.S. border patrol agent.)

And the U.S. federal government is responsible
for a lot more gun violence than this.

He made a simple argument. He not only has the right to distribute 3D printable gun files under the 2nd Amendment, but also under the 1st Amendment. After five years of waging a legal battle over firearm freedom in America, the Justice Department quietly settled with Cody Wilson and his company, Defense Distributed, out of court, agreeing with Wilson's argument that his 3D gun files are protected free speech, and suprisingly offering to pay $40,000 of his legal fees, only a small fraction of the total costs of litigation, but still quite the cherry on top of what was essentially an unconditional surrender of the U.S. Department of Justice to the incontrovertible legal arguments of Cody Wilson's case.

Future 3D Printed Gun Laws Now On Shaky Ground– Not That It Matters Anyways :)

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong

The settlement came a couple months ago, but the news first broke last week in a fascinating, if somewhat hostile feature article by Wired magazine, prompting Cody Wilson to tweet in characteristic laconic form: "Bad News Travels Fast."

As Reason magazine notes, the Justice Department relented as the case neared a ruling on Wilson's 1st Amendment argument, and the 5th Circuit Court judges showed no inclination to grant the government's merits in the case. God bless Texas.

Future attempts by legislators to censor, regulate, or otherwise make 3d printed gun designs illegal are now on shaky legal grounds, and there's no doubt that legislators and courts will remember what happened between the U.S. Justice Department and Cody Wilson in the 5th Circuit this year.

From the perspective of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, this is just the latest landmark case in a remarkable series of rulings– from the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008, to the McDonald case in 2010, to the Woolard ruling in 2012– that have affirmed and even extended the 2nd Amendment protections for American civilians, so they can remain armed and vigilant against imminent threats to their life, liberty, and property. It's a libertarian dream come true. I told you libertarians are winning.

Come And Take It - 3D Printed Gun Plans Are Agorism, Counter Economics, and Cryptoanarchy in Action

Back in 2013 I was watching with avid regard as the 3d printed gun revolution began to unfold in Texas.

In his media interviews, Cody Wilson assumes a coy and shifty pose, giving short and often indirect answers to the many odd questions journalists ask based on unspoken and– for most people– unexamined premises, ideas that Cody sees straight through and refuses to accept. It's an appropriate and articulate pose. I think Cody does it because he knows his actions speak much louder than his words. His demeanor, which confounds so many of his interviewers, seems to say: I made 3D printed gun blueprints. What more could I possibly say?

"Raising the federal age of gun ownership and possession to the age of 21; banning all bump stocks; making sure that we have universal background checks; making sure that people that have committed acts of domestic violence are no longer able to get a gun, which in Florida, it's harder, it's just not impossible, fully, yet; and making sure that people with a criminal history and a history of mental illness are not able to obtain these weapons of mass destruction." -Parkland, Florida rampage shooting survivor, David Hogg's legislative proposals on CNN, Feb 28, 2018

This gun control activist is either naively unaware or willfully ignorant of the inherent limits of such gun control legislation in the era of the Internet and 3D printing technology. The government can ban bump stocks and bully companies that sell them:

But without censoring the entire Internet, it can't stop people from making and uploading plans for 3D printed bump stocks. And it can't stop people from downloading them and manufacturing them with ease at home using a personal 3D printer:

The Revolutionary 3D Printer - How It Works

The fact that you can now 3D print a real gun from downloadable 3D printed gun designs is just one facet of a revolutionary technology that will change the entire economy and society forever. 3D printing as a form of manufacturing is so revolutionary because it is so unlimited in its possibilities.

In many ways it does for the world of physical, manufactured objects, what the Internet has done for information. The term 3D printing is a very perceptive way to formulate and understand "additive manufacturing," the more technical and explicitly descriptive name for this exciting new manufacturing process.

Traditional manufacturing machines typically use a "subtractive manufacturing" process, e.g. punching a specified shape out of a sheet of metal. Such a machine can only produce one kind of object. But– enabled by the power and versatility of digital computation– a 3D printer can read a digital design file for virtually any shape, and by adding successive layers one at a time, can manufacture any object a designer can dream up and model with the help of computer aided design software.

Here's a time elapsed video of a 3D printer in action:

Here's a time elapsed video of a 3D printer in action printing an upgraded version of one of its own parts(!), most of which were intentionally designed to be 3D printable:

Exponential Advancement of 3D Printing

Imagine that. 3D printers printing 3d printers. Self-replication is the essential characteristic of life. So what we're unleashing with 3D printers is the beginning of self-replicating machine life.

While consumer grade 3D printers are rather basic now, mostly used to print replacement parts in plastic and interesting trinkets, novelties, and toys, 3D printers have already advanced a long way since their inception, and just like the concurrent exponential trends of development in the power, versatility, and cost-effectiveness of computing over the past few decades, 3D printers are rapidly becoming more complex, capable, and affordable.

3D printer prices have rapidly fallen over the last decade, even as the machines have become more precise and capable of printing at higher resolutions. 3D printers will become even more versatile over the next decade, able to print at even finer resolutions with a growing variety of materials. At a fine enough resolution with enough materials, 3D printers will be able to manufacture items as small and complex as microchips and entire computing devices like smartphones from files freely distributed online.

In the very near future these personal manufacturing devices will most certainly be able to 3D print entire, fully-functional, sophisticated firearms with durable materials, and manufacture 3D printed ammunition for them to shoot. In fact, just a few months after Defense Distributed uploaded the CAD files for plastic 3D printable gun parts, California-based Solid Concepts (since acquired by Stratasys) demonstrated a pistol 3D printed from aluminum alloy. (They didn't upload the files.)

Just like personal computers, the technology used to produce this firearm will soon be available in every home.

The Second Amendment Forever

Being able to download gun designs from other computers over the Internet and then 3D print a gun in your own home will render gun control impossible forever. There will be no need for the Second Amendment any longer. Americans will not have to lobby Congress and hope it keeps the promises the federal government made in the Bill of Rights. It will simply be impossible for the government to stop us from being free to be dangerous and possess firearms for our right to self defense. A ban on high-capacity magazines or bump stocks will be unenforceable when manufacturing them becomes decentralized, when millions of people can download and 3D print one of their own.

In his report on the Justice Department's capitulation to Defense Distributed, Wired journalist Andy Greenberg called Cody Wilson's project "the winning move in the battle over access to guns."

But the battle is likely far from over.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. A future of freedom is not inevitable. You have to do something to make it a reality.

On April 1, 2013, Defense Distributed and DefCad went down. Visitors saw a notice from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announcing that the domain names had been seized pursuant to an order issued by a U.S. District Court. The next day, the websites were back online, and Defense Distributed posted a screenshot of the previous day's notice, captioned: "Real seizure? Fake seizure? It's a joke either way."

This April Fool's joke raised the specter of a threat to the free availability of 3D printable gun designs over the open Internet.

As William Grigg wrote that day at LewRockwell.com:

"How will gun-grabbers carry out their confiscations if people can download 3-D printing applications and manufacture their own?

They will simply steal the websites."

If the feds can just seize websites, that's the real winning move in the fight for gun freedom, right? Wrong. The April Fool's Day joke was a challenge to free people everywhere. Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have done their part. They've created the designs. They've made them available online. But there's nothing they can do if their website is seized again, perhaps under a future, less 2nd Amendment friendly White House administration. Now you must act to make the 3D printable gun revolution truly relevant, and download the gun designs from DefCad.

The Washington regime can shut down one domain, but it can't stop a million of us if we make millions of copies of these designs and share them in decentralized fashion on peer-to-peer networks to propagate them onto millions of computers across the world, onto as many computers as possible. If you want to engage in a real political act, if you want to make a real difference, if you want to send a loud and clear message to those who would take our guns that they'll never be able to, download the files.

Then install the uTorrent file-sharing app on your computer and seed the files so that others can download them from your computer. This way, even if DefCad is seized by a gun grabbing administration, sovereign individuals everywhere will be able to download the gun designs they want (and have a right to possess) from a million other computers, including yours. This is a radical political act that carries the 3D printed gun revolution to fruition!

"I barely put a million bucks into this and I got you the Second Amendment forever. What has the NRA done for you lately?" -Cody Wilson

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Friday, July 13, 2018

Mr. Crowley, what went on in your head?
Oh, Mr. Crowley, did you talk to the dead?
Your life style to me seemed so tragic
With the thrill of it all
You fooled all the people with magic
Yeah, you waited on Satan's call

Mr. Charming, did you think you were pure?
Mr. Alarming, in nocturnal rapport
Uncovering things that were sacred
Manifest on this Earth
Conceived in the eye of a secret
And they scattered the afterbirth

Mr. Crowley, won't you ride my white horse?
Mr. Crowley, it's symbolic, of course
Approaching a time that is classic
I hear that maidens call
Approaching a time that is drastic
Standing with their backs to the wall

Was it polemically sent
l want to know what you meant
I want to know, I want to know what you meant, yeah

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Nine people shouldn't have the final say over disputes among 300 million people. I don't care if they're the oldest lawyers in America. I also don't care that they work in a Greek temple replica in a swamp in Virginia, dressed in black wizard's robes like Hogwarts students. None of that impresses me. In the end they're just nine people like you and me. What gives them the right to order anyone around? Because they were picked by the winner of a nationwide popularity contest? Because they were confirmed by 51 winners of statewide popularity contests? Because the people who decide those winners are so informed and rational about politics?

II.

What are you saying, Wes? You don't believe in the Constitution? I thought you were a libertarian for God's sake!

No I believe in the Constitution. Of course I believe in it. I've read the whole thing. And after I got to the end of the document, I realized something that seems like it might be relevant–

The only people who signed it were these guys (in 1787, on the inside of a sheep skin, with a feather dipped in ink):

Yep, nope. I don't see my signature anywhere in there. Do you see yours? Did you sign that? Did any of us? Nope!

No living person in America today ever signed that. It's the charter document of a corporation responsible for two centuries and a half of mass theft, murder, and mayhem, under the pretense of law and order. And none of us ever agreed in writing to any of it.

Frankly I do think it'd be a pretty damn good start just to go by what it says in there, but the truth is none of these politicians believe in the Constitution. It might as well be toilet paper to them. They're not even pretending to try to keep it anymore.

This isn't a nation governed by laws. It's just Game of Thrones writ large, an unsavory cast of ambitious psychopaths fighting each other to sit on the throne and pull the levers of power.

III.

So what are you saying you prefer– anarchy?

No. I'm saying this is anarchy. You already have it now. There's just 300 million different individual people living within the borders of the U.S., living out their lives and pursuit-ing their happiness, and most of them know how to behave and treat others with respect and dignity; they're able to govern themselves.

But those who style themselves the rulers, the lawmakers, the keepers of order– are clearly grabbing as much money and power as they can by violating as much of the Constitution, the entire notion of law and order as they can possibly get away with.

At this point in U.S. history, how many blatantly unconstitutional things has our government done? Hmmm? How many billions of dollars of American wealth has been appropriated to be tied up in massive cabinet-level bureaucracies that wouldn't even exist if lawmakers were keeping to the Constitution?

IV.

That's why I say the Supreme Court is stupid.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, their entire purpose is to make sure the damn U.S. isn't stepping outside the bounds of the Constitution, and if that's the measure of their success as an institution they are a failure of titanic proportions!

(Trump Supporter:) That's why it's so important we keep electing good Republican presidents, so we can undo the damage all the liberals have done and start restraining government to its proper role within the Constitution!

So you think Republican appointees to this great nation's High (Out Of Its Mind) Court have been doing their best to keep the federal government in check, and that it's only been the Democratic appointees' fault that the U.S. has gotten so out of control violating the Constitution? Impossible! For the last fifty years there have been 19 Supreme Court appointments...

Democrats appointed five of them.

Republicans appointed fourteen.

If you look at the amount of years spent deciding cases by each "Justice" and break it down by party appointment, the ratio is about the same. So don't come in here with that partisan claptrap, and all your chants and slogans and hats.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yeah, that would be a "No." There's nothing in the Constitution that says the United States has any role to play in the practice of medicine in America, and there's something in the Constitution that says if it doesn't specifically enumerate a power for the federal government, then the federal government's not allowed to do it.

So what gives?

The Supreme Court gives.

Like a cheeto for a deadbolt on a door.

VI.

Conservatives complain about judicial activism all the time, as in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, wherein these nine unelected wise ones jumped through the rim of their own butt crack holes to hallucinate a Constitutionally protected right to abortion.

As the Washington Examiner puts it:

'[The Supreme Court] found a “right to privacy” “emanating” from the Bill of Rights, and that emanation cast a “penumbra” in which the court spotted a fundamental right to abort an unborn baby up to the moment of birth. The ruling held that, in effect, states may not make laws to protect the unborn baby until the seventh month of pregnancy. Even in the final trimester, the court ordered states to grant a broad “health of the mother” exception to any restrictions on abortion.

Plenty of legal scholars who support abortion rights nevertheless admit that the ruling was garbage. “[B]ehind its own verbal smokescreen,” liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe wrote, “the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be,” wrote liberal constitutional law professor John Hart Ely of Yale, Harvard, and Stanford Law Schools.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote in the New Republic, “Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.”

So, in 1992, when Kennedy and the High Court had a chance to review the opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it was reasonable to expect this deformed legal aberration would be discarded. It nearly was, as Kennedy is said to have been persuaded to change sides. In the end, he produced his unique and inventive brand of judicial mysticism.

“At the heart of liberty,” Kennedy wrote in Casey, “is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”'

And I'm with conservatives against judicial activism insofar as legislating from the bench is concerned, but wouldn't it be nice if the courts were less passive about enforcing the Constitution against the untrammeled, breakneck expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives, steamrolling over the constitutional guarantees of liberty every step of the way?

VII.

So back to the "Affordable Care Act," named as it is in the most astonishingly Orwellian fashion. There can be no getting around the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional because there is no enumerated power of the federal government in Article I or II of the Constitution allowing for it to compel its citizens to purchase insurance. That's even more of a mirage in the rightfully barren desert of constitutionally enumerated powers than the right to abort is a hallucination of guaranteed protections.

Okay now, MAGA hats: for the million dollar grand prize, the all expenses paid vacation to Ambergris Caye, and the neeeww car– which Supreme Court Justice was the swing vote that incredibly upheld ObamaCare as perfectly within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution? And the answer is....

Chief Justice John Roberts!
Appointed by REPUBLICAN President George W. Bush!

And the million dollar grand prize, all expenses paid vacation, and new car go to some big wig health insurance executive.

But it gets even better. Come stand at the edge of the abyss with me and peer in. Do you remember what John Robert's legal argument was as to why ObamaCare was constitutional?

Oh it's bitterly absurd. If this shit doesn't redpill you into complete despairing disillusionment with the entire federal system and the farce of constitutional government there's nothing I can do for you. You are hopelessly, willfully lost in state-loving, bootlicking, partisan la la land. Okay ready for it?

Writing in an opinion for himself in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld ObamaCare's individual mandate (requiring Americans to purchase health insurance policies) on the basis that the fine imposed by Congress on anyone who doesn't buy an insurance product from a private financial corporation is constitutional because of Congress' power to tax:

"..it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.

The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

Yes. This government in Washington is a mafia state that does as much as it can get away with to plunder, control, and destroy, not a constitutional government. Still think electing Republicans is going to help keep the federal government in check?

Then you're the reason why it's so out of control.

It's as apparent with the Supreme Court as it is with the White House and Congress, that it doesn't matter who you put in there. Fighting over that is a waste of time. The entire bloody edifice is structurally rotten. This Is The United States.

Democrats and Republicans are like Pepsi and Coke, slightly different flavors of the same thing.

Just like Pepsi and Coke, Democrats and Republicans are so similar that they have to spend millions of dollars every year to convince you that they're actually different.

So similar are Coke and Pepsi that even blind taste tests between the two haven't been able to settle which is better than the other, as different methodologies will yield different results.

In just the same way, the actual policies of the two parties are so similar that even if you didn't know which party was responsible for it, you couldn't tell the difference (Obama deported more immigrants than any president in U.S. history, and Bush presided over an unprecedented expansion of entitlement spending.)

And even though they're essentially the same thing, brand loyalists will swear by their brand and steadfastly refuse to give the other a chance. But in the end both Democrats and Republicans, just like Pepsi and Coke, only help you feel good for a moment even though they are ultimately bad for you.

Democrats and Republicans are like the ruling Communist Party in China, and the United States is really a one-party government.

Sure they're always struggling for power, and it flips back and forth between them every four to eight years, just like in China.

In China's one party government there are also constant internal struggles between warring factions within the Communist Party.

And the levers of power in China's government are also constantly flipping back and forth between factions after so many years.

But no one outside the Communist Party is ever allowed to challenge its dominance over the People's Republic of China.

Just like in America, where the political monopoly, disguised in the thin costume of duopoly, will suffer no outside challenges.

Democrats and Republicans are like professional wrestling. The fights, the trash talking, the body slams– are all for show.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

American culture is beset today by a throng of shrieking harpies howling to high heaven their discontent with the incorrigible unfairness and violence of American men toward women.

Astonishingly enough there are now yearly women's marches in major metropolitans across America as if women are being treated by our society like colored people were treated in the 1950s.

American feminists today, who are so rich, and fat, and clean, and comfortable, and safe, must be so bored with their incredible good fortune to be born in America in this era of unprecedented freedom, prosperity, and gender equality, this absolute most safest haven for women in the history of mankind, that they have taken to fantasizing (and secretly wishing with utmost perversity) that they are an oppressed minority so they can indulge in the excitement of self-aggrandizing cultural agitation and political reaction.

Exciting!

In their decadence and perversity, their life of ease, comfort, and safety is an object of such great scorn for them (and hell hath no such fury indeed), that these agitators who style themselves feminists consider it an indictment against men that men make more money than women do!

At the root of this appalling inversion of values is the Marxist premise that wealth is some kind of static national resource, not the product of hard work and disciplined thinking, so therefore men must not be sharing enough if they make more!

But language in all its inherent wisdom holds the truth in the linguistic formula we use to describe what's actually happening. Men don't horde money from some fabled commons to which we are all equally entitled. Men make more. Good for them!

Rather than complain about all the hard work men do in America to make it the richest, healthiest, safest, cleanest, most comfortable cradle of civilization in the history of humanity, it wouldn't hurt these feminists just to say, "Thank you."

And American men have forged this modern miracle of civilization for the fairer sex to enjoy despite some of the most odious systemic social and legal biases against the stronger sex, shackled up and chained down as he is, flesh flayed like Christ's, and expected to cheerfully bear his cross up the hill as the Nazarene did, while crowds of feminists jeer at the incredibly mild-mannered and gentle American creature, "Misogynist! Rapist!" and to finally be nailed to it so his blood can water the ground, a sacrificial offering to save humanity from danger and want.

America is no misogynist society, shriek though the harpies may. In fact it is a hotbed of man-eaters and misandrists. To the end of proving such a claim, so stark in contrast as it is to the accepted mainstream orthodoxy regarding relations among the sexes, a review of the archives of our civilization is in order.

1. Circumcision - Almost as soon as they were born, the lives of 8 out of 10 boys in America took a drastic and ugly turn from the experience of the girls in America— when a doctor(!) amputated the tip of their healthy penises: "Morris and his colleagues found the circumcision rate in newborns has declined from 83 percent in the 1960s to 77 percent in 2010. (The overall rate among U.S. males age 14 to 59 is 81 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)" When this happens to girls in Africa we call it genital mutilation and a human rights horror show. When it happens to boys in America, we call it medicine.

It's proof of a persistent— and vigorously defended— blind spot for violence– sexual violence– against men. There isn't a more obvious "clue" you could possibly get that America is sexist against men than looking around noticing that all the babies of one sex are getting their sex organs disfigured at birth, while society says in chillingly Orwellian style that it is the unscathed sex which is the oppressed, and the one which takes a knife to the crotch, as infants, practically as a matter of policy, is the oppressor.

This is an institutionalized practice of extreme sexual violence against boys rooted in the primitive rituals of ancient Middle Eastern religions, and the shoe-horned in medical rationalizations for it are simply absurd. The idea that it makes any sense to amputate the skin from the tip of a boy's penis to lower the odds of a UTI in a country with abundant clean running water, soap, and antibiotics evidences America's deep internalized misandry.

2. Foreskin Shaming - Prevalent attitudes toward circumcision and uncircumcised penises underscore the deeply-rooted misandry of American culture. Bring up circumcision, a manifestly vicious act of extreme sexual violence, and watch how many people roll their eyes and instantly dislike you. Listen to the knee-jerk laundry list of excuses and rationalizations. Not only do a majority of people in America not care about this at all, they are unable to see the vicious double standard against boys.

To add insult to the literal, permanent injury to millions of baby boys' penises, a great number of women and gay men casually discuss "cut" or "uncut" penises as an aesthetic sexual preference. In one online survey of 1,000 women reported by Women's Health Magazine, 54 percent of respondents said they "prefer" a circumcised penis. Imagine a world in which it's even possible for such a survey to exist asking men if they prefer women with their vaginas intact or with their labia amputated at birth, and 54 percent of men giggling and casually admitting with complete social impunity to their aesthetic preference for "cut" vaginas– or Chinese foot-binding.

Now that's the foot you want to put in your mouth.
Intact women's feet are just– eww! So gross.

As if all of that isn't enough to break your heart, after the boys are taken home from the hospitals where 8 out of 10 of them were sexually assaulted and permanently disfigured with a doctor's scalpel, the sexism against men in America continues, and the boys are treated worse than the girls. And just like being circumcised, it's something their own mothers have control over, yet they allow this to happen to their boys. American moms talk to their own newborn baby sons less than their daughters.

This is critically important to understand, because feminists complain that America is a "patriarchy" ruled by men, but it is definitely not that as a matter of biological fact. There is no power differential in society greater than that between a mother and her completely helpless, totally dependent, entirely powerless infant. And infants remain that way as small children, and during these crucially formative years, their personality is developed by the care and character of their mothers– the women in our society.

So if there is a toxic masculinity problem in America today– which is about as far from the truth as my left knee is from my right knee when I sit on the subway train (it's when you're hysterically scraping the bottom of the barrel for proof of toxic masculinity that you come up with something as ridiculous to complain about as "manspreading")– if there is toxic masculinity, you can maybe start pointing the finger at the women, who raised every man in America during his most impressionable years:

"In a new study published Monday in the online edition of Pediatrics, researchers looked at the language interactions between 33 late preterm and term infants and their parents by capturing 3,000 hours of recordings.

Somewhat surprisingly, the researchers found that moms interacted vocally more with infant daughters rather than sons both at birth and 44 weeks post-menstrual age (equivalent to 1 month old.)" -Today.com

Maybe they're just feeling awkward. I mean what are they supposed to say to their boys anyways?

"Hey man sorry about the other day when I
told that guy to cut off the tip of your penis."

Sadly there is one category of human beings left in America who it is legally and socially permissible to hit, and that is children– who are the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable, least able to stand up for themselves, and most incapable of posing any kind of threat that would justify getting physical with them. It's very strange.

Society would pillory a 250lb hulking meathead who lives in the gym if he was hitting his tiny 105lb soaking wet wife. All of her friends if they were good friends would tell her he's being abusive and encourage her to leave him. If she had evidence of his assaults, she could easily have him arrested, and sue him for a sizeable amount of his wealth and earnings. But she can pin her 35lb toddler over her wobbling knee every day of his childhood and forcefully slap his butt (which is sexual assault) with a leather belt and many people call that good parenting.

It's not. It's assault, and abuse, of society's most vulnerable people. The science is also in on this. A preponderance of studies have found that spanking children is associated with a variety of negative outcomes in childhood and later in life.

"Many studies have shown that physical punishment — including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain — can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children. Americans’ acceptance of physical punishment has declined since the 1960s, yet surveys show that two-thirds of Americans still approve of parents spanking their kids."

But you don't need the science to know that it's wrong. All you need is to ask why it's acceptable to do things to kids that are crimes if you do them to grown ups. At least hold people to the same standards of respect and dignity in their treatment of children that we all universally expect from each other in our treatment of other adults. All the better if we hold ourselves to a higher standard of kindness, patience, and understanding when dealing with kids. Because they're so little and they don't know anything. Yet we have this confounding blind spot for violence against children, this mass repression of what we know is right and wrong. This exacerbates the blind spot society has for violence against men, so if we are willfully blind to violence against men in America, we are doubly blind to violence against boys.

In America boys are spanked more than girls. And get this– mothers spank more than fathers. These kinds of facts are completely overlooked in any mainstream discussion about sex and violence in America. It's not even possible for most people to think to ask the question. Too many mental blocks guarding the way to the truth. This is most likely the first you've ever heard of this, but not because the truth isn't out there. We've all just been trained to think in a certain way that would prevent us from ever seeing and understanding or even looking for any evidence that women are ever violent against men. The facts:

8 Out Of 10 Spanking Victims In Schools Are Male

According to research data published by Human Rights Watch in 2008: in the 21 U.S. states where it's amazingly still legal for teachers and other perverted school administrators to spank kids, "Boys are subjected to corporal punishment at much higher rates than girls: nationwide, boys make up 78.3 percent of those paddled, while girls make up 21.7 percent. Boys are paddled more than girls in all states that use corporal punishment." (At the time these data were collected it was 21 states. As of the date of this publication, two of those states have outlawed the practice.) Because schools are matriarchal institutions overwhelmingly run and staffed by women (76 percent of public school teachers are female and 44 percent are under the age of 40), this is a matter of institutionalized female violence against males.

Baker County schools Superintendent Paula Barton
holds a paddle she uses for corporal punishment.
She bragged to The Florida Times-Union in 2004 that
she had it custom made to fit her hand.

Parents Spanks Their Boys More Than Girls And Mothers Are More Likely To Spank Than Fathers

Drs. Melanie D. Otis and Andrew C. Grogan-Kaylor, two social scientists at the University of Kentucky and the University of Michigan, respectively, conducted a survey of parents with 800 respondents, and as LiveScience reports, they found that most American parents are baby hitters: "More than 90 percent of parents of toddlers say they have spanked their child at least once." That female parents are more likely to be the culprits: "Mothers spank children more often than fathers do." "About 61 percent of mothers of 3- to 5-year-olds had spanked their child in the past week." And that fathers spank less often: "Mothers spank children more often than fathers do."

Ohio State University Study: Mothers, But Not Fathers, Follow Their Own Moms' Parenting Practices

So this violence against children is primarily matriarchal of origin. In a study conducted by Ohio State University and publicized by ScienceDaily in 2009:

"When it comes to how they raise their children, mothers today tend to follow the same practices their own mothers did, according to a new study that looked at parenting practices across two generations. Fathers, on the other hand, don't seem to use their moms as parenting role models, at least for some practices...

In both generations, the researchers looked at how often parents spanked their children in the past week; how often they showed their child physical affection and praised them in the past week; and how often they read to their child in the past month.

Results showed that for all three behaviors, the second generation of mothers closely followed what their mothers did. For example, mothers who were spanked at least once a week are nearly half as more likely to spank than mothers who weren't spanked at all.

In most cases, there was no relationship between mothers' parenting practices and the parenting practices of their sons – the one exception being spanking. And in that instance, fathers who were spanked as children were less likely to spank their own children."

You read that right!

Violence Is Actually Perpetuated By The Matriarchy

The perpetuation of violence against children, more often male children than female, is passed down from mother to daughter, and it is the fathers– the patriarchy– who are responsible for the mercifully decreasing amount of violent parenting in our time.

"Fathers spanked as children were less likely to spank their own children.

The study found only 28 percent of the second generation of fathers reported spanking their children compared to 43 percent of mothers.

So boys are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence than girls. Mothers are more likely than fathers to be the assailants. Girls who are victimized in this way are more likely to victimize their own children (and more likely to victimize their male children). And boys who are victimized in this way are less likely to treat their own children this way. The results of social science research into the origins of violence in society are startling. The germ of violence in our society, which is learned at the youngest ages, is perpetuated by the matriarchy, and more likely to be perpetrated against males, and yet males who suffer from it are more likely to develop the empathy not to wish it on their own children.

Even when a feminist website like Women's eNews acknowledges the incontrovertible scientific evidence that boys are spanked more than girls, the author of the piece cannot bring herself to acknowledge this is just as harmful to boys as it is to girls. Only in the tortured logic of a feminist with an agenda can an article that leads with the fact that boys are more often the victims of spanking than girls twist such a stark misandrist reality into a goddamn Women's Issue of patriarchal violence against girls.

Just read this wretched misandrist tripe and see for yourself how callously sexist America is toward men:

"All studies show that boys are spanked significantly more than girls, but there are special concerns with girls who are spanked. Of particular concern is the sexual aspect of spanking girls.

'When a girl is spanked by her father or paddled by a male school teacher, she is being trained to submit,' says Jordan Riak, a retired school teacher and the executive director of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education, a California-based nonprofit group dedicated to getting corporal punishment banned in U.S. schools."

'When a school district permits teachers to paddle girls, it is setting those girls up to be victims of future male authority figures, whether it be a boyfriend, husband or employer,' Riak claims.

How is it any less true that a boy who is spanked (by a parent or teacher of either sex) is being trained to submit? It's not any less true. Using violence trains children of either sex to fear and submit to future authority figures. Period. If you think or imply otherwise, as the author of this piece, you are sexist asf toward boys.

"...Irwin Hyman, professor of school psychology at Temple University in Philadelphia and author of several books on the effect of spanking on children echoes Riak’s warnings.

'There are definite sexual implications for a male teacher to paddle a girl,' he says. 'The nerve endings that go to the genitalia also go to the buttocks.'

Hyman says spanking by parents also has negative emotional consequences for girls. 'The intention of spanking is to cause pain and the causing of pain to girls and then saying "I love you" is not healthy.'"

Again, why gender the victims of this sick form of abuse that inflicts pain and fear on small, vulnerable victims and follows up with "I love you" as the justification for it? Because America— especially liberal bastions of America like Hollywood and academia– is sexist asf toward men. And I'm no anatomist, but I do believe the sex organs of males are in the same region of the human body as females. But leave it to the same liberals who say there are no differences between males and females to say spanking females is worse than spanking males.

And if there aren't sexual implications to a
woman spanking a boy, go figure out the
popularity of this fetish geniuses.

It's not worse. They're both equally vile, and it just so happens that males are more often the victims and females are more often the perpetrators. And I'll let this Time Magazine report on spanking paint you the picture of what it's like for them before moving on to the next article of American misandry on this list:

"It’s not P.C. to admit you spank your child. But nearly 40 moms have gone a step further, recording themselves hitting and slapping their kids as part of a new study on how parents and children interact.

They didn’t know they were going to be in a study about spanking per se. Researchers have to be careful when presenting their proposed area of study to potential participants — too much information can lead people to alter their normal behavior, which would skew results. So when George Holden, a professor of psychology at Southern Methodist University who has published five books on parenting and child development, went to day-care centers in Dallas to recruit parents, he divulged only that he wanted to collect data about naturally occurring parent-child interaction.

In fact, Holden didn’t even know he’d be studying spanking. He originally set out to study yelling, via voluntary audio recordings of parents conducting life at home — the pedestrian stuff of parenting like meal prep, bath time and lights out...

Here’s the twist: in the course of analyzing the data collected from 37 families — 36 mothers and one father, all of whom recorded up to 36 hours of audio in six days of study — researchers heard the sharp cracks and dull thuds of spanking, followed in some cases by minutes of crying. They’d inadvertently captured evidence of corporal punishment, as well as the tense moments before and the resolution after, leading researchers to believe they’d amassed the first-ever cache of real-time spanking data.

The recordings feature a mother spanking her 3-year-old son 11 times for fighting with his sister, prompting a fit of crying and coughing. Another mom hits her 5-year-old when he won’t clean up his room. One mom slaps her child when he doesn’t cooperate with the bedtime routine...

One mother in the study hit her toddler after the toddler either hit or kicked the mother, admonishing, 'This is to help you remember not to hit your mother.'

'The irony is just amazing,' says Holden."

Holden’s recordings provide rich context for what causes a parent to spank. The data are particularly unsettling because many of the infractions that led a mom to hit involve petty misbehavior, like turning the page in a book before it was time. While listening to his mother read The Tortoise and the Hare, for example, one boy began touching the pages, garnering a slap.

'At 2:03:31, the mother says, "No, Justin," and continues reading,' according to a transcription describing the incident. 'Then at 2:03:34 she smacks him, and says, "No, Justin. If you want me to read, quit messing with the pages. Cause you’re moving it while I’m reading."'"

It would be legally actionable if that woman's boss treated her that way at work. Society is set up to protect her from any man who would dare to raise a hand against her, but not little Justin, nor any of the little boys who are more likely to be hit than little girls in America, and more likely to be hit by a woman.

"By the time they reach high school, nearly 20 percent of all American boys will be diagnosed with ADHD. Millions of those boys will be prescribed a powerful stimulant to 'normalize' them. A great many of those boys will suffer serious side effects from those drugs. The shocking truth is that many of those diagnoses are wrong, and that most of those boys are being drugged for no good reason—simply for being boys. It's time we recognize this as a crisis.

If you have a son, you have a one-in-seven chance that he has been diagnosed with ADHD. If you have a son who has been diagnosed, it's more than likely that he has been prescribed a stimulant—the most famous brand names are Ritalin and Adderall; newer ones include Vyvanse and Concerta—to deal with the symptoms of that psychiatric condition.

The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies stimulants as Schedule II drugs, defined as having a 'high potential for abuse' and 'with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence.' (According to a University of Michigan study, Adderall is the most abused brand-name drug among high school seniors.) In addition to stimulants like Ritalin, Adderall, Vyvanse, and Concerta, Schedule II drugs include cocaine, methamphetamine, Demerol, and OxyContin...

In 2013, the CDC released data revealing that 11 percent of American schoolchildren had been diagnosed with ADHD, which amounts to 6.4 million children between the ages of four and seventeen—a 16 percent increase since 2007 and a 42 percent increase since 2003. Boys are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed as girls—15.1 percent to 6.7 percent. By high school, even more boys are diagnosed—nearly one in five.

Almost 20 percent.

And overall, of the children in this country who are told they suffer from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, two thirds are on prescription drugs...

'We are pathologizing boyhood,' says Ned Hallo-well, a psychiatrist who has been diagnosed with ADHD himself and has cowritten two books about it, Driven to Distraction and Delivered from Distraction. 'God bless the women's movement—we needed it—but what's happened is, particularly in schools where most of the teachers are women, there's been a general girlification of elementary school, where any kind of disruptive behavior is sinful. What I call the 'moral diagnosis' gets made: You're bad. Now go get a doctor and get on medication so you'll be good. And that's a real perversion of what ought to happen. Most boys are naturally more restless than most girls, and I would say that's good. But schools want these little goody-goodies who sit still and do what they're told—these robots—and that's just not who boys are.'"

A 2013 article in The New York Times by Alan Schwartz covers the meteoric rise in ADHD diagnoses described in the Esquire piece above, with special attention to the ways in which Big Pharma misrepresents ADHD and stimulants to consumers. A video accompanying the piece reveals how pharmaceutical companies target boys and their parents, with 23 of the promotional ads featuring images of young boys and just two featuring young girls. America is just feeding these boys' brains and childhoods to Big Pharma, which is happy to gobble them up for profits. Anybody who gets their child high on amphetamines so they'll sit still in school should be behind bars instead of the hundreds of thousands of adults in confinement for making a non-violent choice about their own bodies to consume drugs. And this extreme yet socially acceptable form of drug abuse is something twice is likely to happen to a child in America if he is a boy.

If you want to see how sexist America is against men, look no further than the difference in how violence against men is perceived and discussed. It's trivialized, normalized, overlooked, and even laughed about. A lot of mainstream journalists pretty much laughed about Rand Paul getting assaulted and left with 6 broken ribs. It would have been an entirely different reaction from America if a female senator had been viciously attacked and seriously injured in this way. I documented many examples of the mainstream media's deplorable frivolity over the assault here.

If you still don't think this is a misandrist country, just watch this popular, mainstream, daytime television show in which popular mainstream female celebrities and their crowing audience of lunatics laugh about a man getting his penis cut off by his wife.

Women die on the job at 7.5 percent the rate that men do! Curiously you'll
never hear a feminist complain about the Workplace Death Gap.

America is a place where all men are expected to shoulder some sort of class guilt for the evil actions of a few individuals, but men here can't even escape derision and censure for the good things men do, like working long hours to run incredibly productive multi-billion dollar conglomerates, or choosing dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable jobs to do day after day to keep the lights on and the clean running water going. Men are demonized for that too!

How dare they make more money than women! They must be discriminating against women, the sexist pigs! But why on earth would a corporation discriminate? Corporations aren't people, as liberals are fond of saying in the post-Citizens United era. And they aren't. They are forces of nature like a hurricane. And they have one purpose, which is to make profits. If it were really possible for a company to pay a woman 22% less money than a man for the same work, why would a company ever hire men?

Feminists and the mainstream media continue repeating a wildly deceptive statistic– from the Obama White House, which claimed, "On average, full-time working women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns," –to the American Association of University Women which says, "Did you know that in 2014, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 79 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 21 percent?" –to the radical leftist National Organization for Women, which states, "For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 77 percent of what men are paid… Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value."

But as Harvard economist, Claudia Goldin points out, this statistic doesn't at all prove there's any kind of discrimination against women happening in the American economy.

"It’s deceptively easy to calculate how much—or how little—women in the United States earn relative to men. 'You take everyone who’s working 35 or more hours a week for the full year, find the median for women, find the median for men, and divide,' says Lee professor of economics Claudia Goldin, explaining how to arrive at the ratio repeated by public officials: 78 cents to the dollar. 'It’s very simple.'

'It answers a particular question,' she says, 'but it doesn’t say that men and women are doing the same thing. It doesn’t say that they’re working the same amount of time, the same hours during the day, or the same days of the week.' The rhetoric of politicians, and policy prescriptions meant to close the gender wage gap, assume that pay disparities are created primarily by outright discrimination by employers, or by women’s lack of negotiation skills."

And listen– I believe in capitalism even though I suck at it.
I chose to be a bloody blogger for God's sake.
And you won't hear me bitching that I don't make
as much money as a pediatric heart surgeon.

There has never been a country or system more fair to people and less discriminatory than capitalism. The free market doesn't care if you're a man or a woman. It doesn't care what your race is. It doesn't care what language your parents grew up speaking. The free market pays people based on what they do for it. No one in America is stopping women or anyone from making as much money as they want. Women just don't work as hard and they're just not as willing as men are to specialize in highly technical, but highly valuable economic niches. Case. Fucking. Closed.

"Even though fathers’ rights are gradually progressing, there’s still a presumption that mothers are the better caregivers and it’s most often the father that gets gipped out of time with their children. Roughly 83% of mothers receive custody of their children over fathers in a divorce. On top of that, fathers are statistically awarded less child support than mothers in the cases when they do get more custody. Recent studies suggest that unequal parenting time isn’t in the best interest of the child—so it’s not just fathers that are harmed by this bias...

It doesn’t just come in the form of child custody awards either. Roughly 400,00 people in the U.S. receive some form of spousal maintenance, or alimony and only 3% were men. Yet, if you consider 40% of households are headed by female breadwinners, it definitely suggests there’s a problem when men eligible to receive alimony just aren’t getting it.

When it comes to spousal support, the attitude towards men is usually to buck up and get a job and that can sometimes even come from a judge. It’s not unheard of to see cases where the female is a high-earning executive while the male is the stay-at-home father taking care of the kids and, upon divorce, the father only gets a 6-month award of support when, if the situation were reversed, the mother would have easily been awarded years of alimony before being cut off."

It's a clear cut case of institutional sexism against men in the absolute circus show of America's sexist family court system.

Alimony is the abominable premise that because you were in a relationship with someone and broke up with them, you have to pay them for the rest of your life. WTF??? It's such a bizarre idea that it would be laughable if it weren't so viciously devastating to the men who suffer from this cruel financial rape, and as you saw in the statistics above, only 3 percent of alimony recipients are men. This is the overt enslavement of men to vicious ex-wives who have no right to dig their bloody claws into these men and refuse to let go, all with the legal help and blessing of the tyrannical state. For an instructive example of this evil phenomenon at work, consider the case of Dave Foley:

If you're curious about what happened in this guy's seriously screwed up marriage to Tabatha Southey and what she did to him, he discusses it in detail on the Joe Rogan Experience:

In cases where the man is a high income earner, some of the most productive and heroic men in our society, successful entertainers like Dave Foley, or pinnacle professional athletes, the sheer enormity of the ridiculous sums their thieving ex-wives are allowed to loot is absolutely jaw dropping. Bill Burr says it best:

Researching and writing an article like this takes a lot of work, but it's what I live for. Please consider supporting me on Patreon or leaving a tip. Thank you! -Wes